Sam Harris.org Reader Forum1970-01-01T00:00:00ZCopyright (c) 2015ExpressionEnginetag:https:,2015:07:31You can’t Wake Up, but you can become lucid, which is a far greater thing…tag:https:,2015:/www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8979/viewthread/.181162015-07-15T07:49:48Z1970-01-01T00:00:00Zgrslambeth
I congratulate Sam Harris on his bold work and rigorous thinking this last decade or so. His latest book Waking Up is balanced and persuasive, with a golden thread of good argument throughout. But in using the metaphor ‘waking up’ for the shift in perception that Buddhists call ‘satori’, I reckon he’s fallen foul of a formula that has become encrusted with the wide-eyed naivety of generations of deferential adherents.

The dream can be a good metaphor for the normal human experience of reality. But there is no waking up from it. The suggestion - that this everyday reality is an illusion, from which we can wake up into a more real reality – is confused, though well-meaning. Its implicit instruction is for us to forgo the mundane world and seek truth and satisfaction in higher places – in the silence of meditation, or the channelled distraction of prayer.

In my experience, you can’t wake up from the world, but you can become lucid in it, and this is a far superior metaphor for what is on offer for the curious, balanced, reasonable seeker of truth. To become lucid is to become conscious of the fact of the dream. In other words, it is to wake up into the dream. This is a subtle but vital difference. With lucidity, the ‘dream’ is not dispelled - it remains - only now you are fully awake within it. Anyone who has been tucked up in bed dreaming, but who has become conscious of the fact, will attest. This is called a lucid dream: there is also the possibility of waking lucidity.

On the attainment of waking lucidity, the world is completely unchanged, but totally transformed. In Martin Heidegger’s language, ‘being’ or reality – the ‘dream’ in our metaphor - opens, whereas before it was self-enclosed. To myself I call this experience ‘radical astonishment’. Any and every mundane object becomes totally and irrevocably astonishing. Further, it’s clear that the world was never mundane; mundaneness was a kind of camouflage. Like an octopus hiding in plain sight against an outcrop of coral, once you catch sight of it, you see it in its entirety. Such is true of reality. Radical astonishment is this seeing.

This kind of clear seeing should be the goal of all reasonable, curious, thinking people in our age. I say ‘should’ because it’s not some special state, but the truly natural view. Natural because unclouded. Scientists should love it. But it can only come about when all worldviews – including the scientific - are at least momentarily shed. I mention Science because it is after all an abstraction, a tool, and therefore takes one off into one’s mind when radical astonishment can only occur in the fully collected here and now. You can’t become lucid if you’re off thinking things.

I mention all this because in fact I’m looking for something from you good members of the forum. I’m looking for candidates who might be able to follow along on a little journey towards radical astonishment. You would need to be:

• Reasonably free of ideologies
• Intensely curious about the nature of reality
• Of sound and balanced mind
• Intellectually independent and open

If this sounds interesting to you, and you tick the boxes, please get in touch. I’m looking at this stage to understand a potential audience for this kind of approach. I may be in the wrong place, but my spidey senses tell me I’m not. Either way, do respond if what I have said rings any bells.

Many thanks,
grslambeth

]]>
Puzzle of Consciousness is Solvedtag:https:,2015:/www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8979/viewthread/.180982015-05-22T19:12:47Z1970-01-01T00:00:00ZShaikh Raisuddin
Sam Harris would be most interested as neuro-scientist that the puzzle of consciousness is solved

This chapter is in an openly posted book (as drafts get written) takes a look in some depth at the contents of several Upanishads, the Brahma or Vedanta Sutras, the Bhagavad Gita, Ribhu Gita, Avadhut Gita, Ashtavakara Gita, and Tripura Rahasya.

Also at the above site, the Preface and Chapter One are done.

Feedback and suggested corrections are very much welcomed.

]]>
No free will? Even with religion?tag:https:,2015:/www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8979/viewthread/.180072015-04-13T21:50:41Z2015-04-14T07:15:47ZIhavemudbutt
Harris’ argument is that everything is made up of chemicals and neurons presupposed by biological factors, but isn’t everything presupposed? Even before with the invention of time things were created in a way that would react specifically to things purely because they have a beginning. Even if you believe in a creator, actually especially if you believe in a creator, because he is all-knowing(in most faiths) and thus knows everything to come or not to come which means it has to have been predetermined. Regardless of that and back to the main argument, you can take god himself and his beginnings, he was created and created in a way that will react specifically to everything. Everything has a set composition that reacts to everything in set ways even if the events themselves haven’t yet caused those reactions, just like with your brain. So if it has a beginning, it has no free will. Does this make sense to anybody? Am I coming off as a Deepak Chopra understudy?
[ Edited: 13 April 2015 09:26 AM by Ihavemudbutt]
]]>
‘Nothing’ lasts forevertag:https:,2015:/www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8979/viewthread/.180032015-04-05T21:45:39Z2015-05-02T01:42:19ZRelinquish
Logically, the fundamental phenomenon that is ‘Change’ can have no true beginning or ending, and as such, nothing lasts forever. In other words, ‘Nothing’ ALWAYS exists.

Given this fact, in truth, ‘Something’ NEVER exists (neither Here and Now in THIS moment, nor in ANY conceivable ‘other moment’).

The apparently coherent, ever-flowing stream of ‘Change’ is infact most accurately defined as the deterministic ‘evaporation’ of the ‘absolute randomness’ that ever-periodically emanates naturally from this ‘Nothing’ that always exists.

In this way, Reality itself fundamentally equals ‘ZERO’, and can therefore have no real ultimate ‘edge’, in any direction at all, in expanse or duration.

Yet, the very ‘ISness’ of this ‘ZERO’ inextricably equals ‘ONE’.

Being intrinsically infinite and eternal, ‘ONE’ is forever choicelessly aware of (and is therefore effortlessly experiencing) the eternal infinity that is ‘ONE’, all the while remaining (due to its fundamentally attributeless nature) inherently unrequiring of (and thus, completely devoid of) any capacity for the formation of any kind of ‘knowledge’ of ‘itself’, or of ‘anything else’.

This is the stateless state of ‘pure awareness’. It simply ‘is’, without beginning, ending or edge, always already perfect and complete, and absolutely sufficient unto itself. As such, it remains forever in an unfathomable state of unthreatenable bliss.

This, alone, is ‘What Actually ‘IS’‘, ‘Here’ and ‘Now’.

As ‘ONE’ experiences ‘ONE’, ‘ONE’ SEEMS to be ‘TWO’. These illusory ‘TWO’ are ‘the seer’ and ‘the seen’. The seen is fundamentally manifested as the state of ‘absolute chaos’ (i.e. finite, ever-changing and moving form). The seer is fundamentally manifested as the state of ‘absolute order’ (i.e. infinite, ever-changeless and still emptiness).

‘From’ the eternal interaction between this apparent ‘pair’, ‘Everything’ happens, in the ONLY way that it possibly can;

‘THIS’ way.

In other words, the so-called ‘big bang’ (which is one in an infinite series of such bangs) can be described as an instantaneous event of pure chaos (i.e. the seen) that happens in the infinite field of changeless and orderly emptiness (i.e. the seer). When this occurs, the passive ‘gaze’ of the field causes the event to coherently ‘evaporate’, unresistingly, via the orderly path of least resistance until it has completely dissolved, and then another ‘bang’ happens, and so on forever. The evaporation itself (which can ONLY happen perfectly) is the seemingly causal and sequential ‘life’ of the universe, along with all of its apparently coherent hierarchical structure and physical ‘laws’.

Being an evaporation, it doesn’t really have any actual ‘parts’, that are fundamentally different from and/or independently other than each other in the way in which they seem to be.

Therefore, every’thing’, every’one’, and every ‘event’ EVER is actually an ‘apparent part’ of the forever fundamentally seamless and effortless unfurling of this one choiceless effect, which is itself comprised ONLY of the one causeless, unencompassed, self-experiencing presence that is ‘ZERO’.

Amongst the myriad finite and temporary undulations that arise and dissolve within this illusory evaporation, there arise certain undulations of such extreme physical complexity that they have the choiceless and effortless capacity to ‘reflect’ the timeless gaze of the infinite emptiness back upon itself from their own particular positions, as well as upon all surrounding undulations within a certain coherent distance from themselves. This makes it seem as if there is a uniquely autonomous, finite and temporary consciousness operating within each of these extremely complex undulations, consequently concealing the fundamentally seamless oneness of the universe.

Ultimately ‘Here’ and ‘Now’, without another, forever and ever;

(((((((((‘THIS’-EXPERIENCING-‘THIS’)))))))))

Thanks heaps for reading.

]]>
Future of Guru model from Medieval South and Central Asiatag:https:,2015:/www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8979/viewthread/.179912015-03-22T15:53:30Z2015-04-16T16:03:38Zdharmaresearcher
In the early medieval era of India and points north, the teacher or guru/student relationship typical of the early Upanishadic period, and of the Buddha’s way, was affected by the popular bhakti and deification (of past and present persons) movements along with the growth of Tantra. That model has been liberally exported in the last several decades to western cultures and now we have many illuminating stories imparting important lessons for all of us, especially mature practitioners taking a detours into grandiosity and exploitative ways.

What’s your take on this model? Necessary for the liberation of the disciple as many assert still? The medieval model includes seeing the Guru as a necessary initiator or transmitter of “the Truth” or experience of its condition and nature.

Will it survive as a model going forward?

]]>
How and Why Consciousness is Domain of Physicstag:https:,2015:/www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8979/viewthread/.179852015-03-20T19:26:45Z1970-01-01T00:00:00ZShaikh Raisuddin
Physics is BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCE of matter.
It is not Physics that gives behaviour to matter; instead it is behaviour of matter that gives Physics. Physics is Psychology of matter.

Awareness comes by changes. No change no consciousness. To be aware is to be effected (changed). Stimulus is a change causing agent.

Only matter is tangible thus changeable.

Thought, emotion, thinking, memory etc are by behaviour of matter of brain.

INERTIA is source of consciousness! Inertia of matter is beholder of discreteness, collectiveness and consciousness. By consciousness it maintains discreteness externally and collectiveness internally. It is the property of protection of identity. It resists change by causing time-lag and mandating threshold intensity to preserve integrity. It is a work or energy distribution function. It causes all work whether added or subtracted to be evenly distributed throughout volume of matter. It differs by internal mass composition, distribution, their connectedness and momentum. Broadly there are two parts of inertia 1) morphological inertia and 2) physiological inertia (potential-balance, equilibrium, homeostasis and heterostasis)

Time is fictitious concept. It is measure of change of context of sources of stimuli.

Information is fictitious, it is TRAVEL EFFECT of matter which causes exchange of energy and change of direction of travel. For ease of comprehension compare information from voice recorder.

Subjectivity is inertial system of human body. Recall how in theory of relativity inertial frames influence physical process.

Duality of body and mind and subjectivity of experiences is a linguistic error. Communications between matters happen in LANGUAGE OF MATTER and not in social language.

The words, “mind” and “consciousness” are not ‘nouns’ but ‘verbs’ because they represent neurological process that is “series of actions”

Consciousness is HIERARCHICAL. Degree of consciousness increases with increase in variety of inertial systems and variety of number of languages of matter evolve from inanimate matter to Man.

This is my Interface Theory of Consciousness whose abstract has been accepted by TSC 2015 Helsinki conference

]]>
Philosophy as Religiontag:https:,2015:/www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8979/viewthread/.179842015-03-20T04:19:41Z2015-03-20T04:22:34Zthistleknot
I’m a fan of Pandeism and Panendeism myself.

However I do not hold a belief in panendeism as a requirement for a belief in a higher power.

I view a “higher power” as the Universe itself. For the Universe created me.

I hold intrinsic value in knowledge. If I reject knowledge as having value, then why even have logical arguments towards the truth? For the truth would have no value. However, truth I hold as having value because it leads us to better lives and the ability to deconstruct reality.

My belief in a “divine” is our conscious state. A logos exists within us but is external to us (external stimuli = the reason our minds act on; very Chalmers) as Aristotle posited as an “active mind” or the stoic’s as a pneuma as well as logos.

In other words, we are the Universe responding to itself.

That is how I find value and meaning in life. I think it’s somewhat syncretic between reliigous POV’s and a little more heart warming than standard new atheism.

]]>
Quantum Consciousness: My Problem with Sam Harris and Lawrence Krausstag:https:,2015:/www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8979/viewthread/.179822015-03-16T12:23:37Z1970-01-01T00:00:00Zbiotheoretics
It’s a 9 page preface for a book I’m writing, but it presents my case and thesis that neither of these men know substantially what they’re talking about.

Listening to Harris’s second meeting on the Very Bad Wizards podcast is a slow way to induce insanity. At times, Dr. Pizarro and (especially) Dr. Sommers sound like sophomore year undergraduate philosophy majors trying to understand and counter Harris’s positions.

The intellectual level of the philosophical discussion sounds as if Harris is instead speaking with Joe Rogan and Co.